Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[Kolokotronis]

The first icon you are refering to is this:

Called the Ladder of Divine Ascent and depicts the process of theosis. The second is this:

Called the Icon of the Resurrection. The people standing by are not Apostles. They are Kings David and Solomon, Abel, Elijah, Moses and +John the Baptist. They represent the Righteous before the time of, or in the case of +John the Forerunner, contemporary with, Christ. This is the icon which depicts the rescue of Adam and Eve, and thus all mankind, from the chains of death. Satan is shown bound himself in chains as a symbol of his defeat.

[Full Court]

Well, unfortunately for you, this passage only proves that Isaiah knew the sign of the messiah.

Are you now claiming that Mary was not a good Jew and did not know the Scriptures?

[Full Court]

So we can see how confusion would occur, I'm praying to you.

You have a way of reaching me to ask me to pray FOR YOU.

You do not have any way at all of reaching Mary or other dead people to ask them to pray for you.

You are not told to do so in Scripture. And you are not told to pray to them.

So why do it?

[Full Court]

Matthew 6:7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[Full Court]

If the priests were the same as the original apostles, they would have the signs of the apsotles.

They don't.

Mark 16:20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

[Full Court]

Priests are obviously not apostles.

Acts 5:12  ¶And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

13  And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

14  And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

15  Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

16  There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

[jo kus]

If the priests were the same as the original apostles, they would have the signs of the apsotles

I didn't say they were THE ORIGINAL Apostles! Whew! I said they were given the same power to forgive sins and to preach the Word so that men of all time have access to receiving God's healing touch and the power of the Word. Do you really think that God was only concerned for mankind from 33 AD until the death of the last of the 12 Apostles about 100 AD? That makes absolutely no sense. Christ's command AND power was given as gifts to the Church for ALL time.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

I have read about a number of priests whom God has worked through miraculously. Padre Pio strikes me as one very powerful man whom God worked through.

Regards

[jo kus]

How does Acts 5:12-16 definitely prove your point that today's Catholic bishops are not the successors of the original 12 Apostles?

Regards

[Full Court]

Galatians 2:1  ¶Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

[Full Court]

If you are claiming that priests have the same powers as the apostles, I suggest that you go to justbible.com and search for the word signs.

Priests today DO NOT have any of the signs of the apostles.

Secondly, the signs were given by God to the Jews only. The JEWS knew to look for signs.

The gentile world sought after knowledge, hence the end of signs and wonders.


Peter, whom you claim as the first "pope" was not even sent to the Gentiles, Paul was.

Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

[Full Court]

An angel appeared to Samson's parents and to Zechariah to announce the birth of a child. So, in the Bible, angels appear to announce the births of children conceived in an ordinary way.

Were these ordinary children?

Were ordinary circumstances present?

Did an angel announce the birth of every Jewish child?

[monkfan]

"Are you now claiming that Mary was not a good Jew and did not know the Scriptures?"

No. I'm claiming you do not have any scripture to back up your assertion. Since you lack the evidence required to validate said assertion, you are, by definition, speculating.

I'm claiming you demand from others what you yourself are unable to provide.

I'm claiming you do not have the mettle to play by your own rules.

[HarleyD]

We believe that Calvinists misunderstand St. Augustine's writings, taking them out of context.... But reading St. Augustine outside of polemic language, one finds he was NOT a "proto-Protestant". You would be quite surprised to see how Roman Catholic he really was...

Oh really? I would submit the more fundamental beliefs of Augustine establishes the basic foundations for the Reformation (e.g. views on man's free will, election, predestination, etc.). His other views such as infant baptism, the Eucharist, Mary, etc are secondary views.

Then we can no longer call God "fair" if there is no possibility of a man pleasing God when God actively chooses to withhold from that man the ability to please God.

"Command what you will, and give what you command"-Augustine

Pelagius had a problem with this prayer as well.

[Full Court]

I'm claiming you do not have any scripture to back up your assertion.

Kind of like your theory that Mary was sworn to virginity and was to marry an elderly man named Joseph so she wouldn't have to have sex?

I have Scripture in Isaiah to back up my assertion.

You have none for yours and have Scripture contrary to what you claim, yet you continue to hold to a false belief about Mary.

The question is why?

[HarleyD]

Monkfan makes a valid point. If an angel appeared to a young woman planning to marry, and told her that she would conceive and bear a son, why would she assume that it meant "conceive -- this very instant?" It would have been most reasonable for her to assume that the angel meant that this would happen after she was married and began to "know" her husband.

What you and Monkfan are saying is not consistent with Luke. When the angel of the Lord approached Mary and told her she would conceive and bear a son, she asked the most appropriate question,

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" Luke 1:27

Mary did not for a moment believe that she would be married and bear a child. She knew very clearly what the angel was telling her. While it is unclear whether Mary herself knew the scriptures of Isaiah, clearly Matthew did which he clearly references in Matthew 1:23. Mary, whether she knew about Isaiah or not, in no way believe that she would conceive in the "normal" way.

According to our tradition, she lived at a time when there was no "single option" for women. One married. Period.

I would also suggest that you are forgetting Joseph in this whole argument. For Joseph to have married someone who was already impregnated would have been a terrible thing to do for a good Jewish man.

Mary's submission to God's calling is what's make this such a beautiful event for she was willing to go through not only the social stigma but possibly being stoned to death according to custom. Joseph's submission is what is often overlooked because he believed God. Though he was engaged and should have properly given Mary a certificate of divorce, was obedient to the Lord and carried through on his commitment.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As far as I know, all of the principle Protestant posters (a lot of alliteration from aspiring anchors... :) hold to a believer's baptism.

Not so fast, FK. All us Presbyterians/Reformed Protestants hold to the grace and comfort of infant baptism.

But since baptism is not a salvation issue, it does not bring too much consternation that you are off-track on this one. 8~)

All Reformed believers are in agreement that the act of baptism does not bring salvation; it is a sign and seal of our unmerited redemption by Christ's perfect and complete atonement for which we give eternal thanks.

Grace saves, and grace alone.

[monkfan]

"Kind of like your theory that Mary was sworn to virginity and was to marry an elderly man named Joseph so she wouldn't have to have sex?"

Yeah, kinda like that. Only I was simply restating what has been common knowledge in the Church for 2000 years while you are dreaming up an alternate theory based on little more than your own wishful thinking.

"I have Scripture in Isaiah to back up my assertion."

I hope it's more relevant than the last passage you quoted from Isaiah. You know, the one that failed to demonstrate that Mary knew the sign.

"You have none for yours and have Scripture contrary to what you claim, yet you continue to hold to a false belief about Mary."

First of all, you have failed miserably in your attempt to demonstrate that my belief is false. Second, I never claimed that my belief could be proven from Scripture. That level of proof was introduced by you. Third, you have repeatedly neglected to provide the same level of proof that you require of everyone else.

"The question is why?"

OK. Why can't you provide the same level of proof you require of everyone else?

For the record, I do not doubt for a minute that Mary knew Scripture well, including the prophecy in question. However, I cannot prove that from Scripture and, more to the point, neither can you. I base my extra-biblical understanding of Mary on Church Tradition and, in some cases, deductive reasoning. What do you base yours on?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The priests are apostles in that definition of the word.

Is Father Michael Edwin Wempe an apostle?

Wempe, 66, was sentenced to jail last week for sexually abusing a young boy in his congregation.

Wempe has admitted to sexually abusing 13 boys during his 36-year career in the Los Angeles Archdiocese.

[D-fendr]

You have a way of reaching me to ask me to pray FOR YOU.

I also have a way of reaching them. We are in communion, part of the same Body of Christ. And therein lies our difference of belief. The Communion of Saints. Whether the saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ or not, whether they are aware of us or not.

You are not told to do so in Scripture.

Sure we are. The difference is you don't think it applies to saints in heaven, we do. Same reason as above.

thanks for your reply.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In order to understand Augustine, every Roman Catholic should read his masterwork...

TREATISE ON PREDESTINATION

"Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected -- not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe...His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so..." -- ST. AUGUSTINE, "Treatise on Predestination" Chapter 34.